• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Va. House GOP muscles through abortion curbs

MrVicchio said:
Ultrasound Policy

Now I'll be the first to admit, it's a biased site, but I went looking for conflicting studies and found... none.
Click to expand...

What your study doesn't touch on is the suffering those women endured, having authority figures telling her over and over again what choice to make. That's called coercion. There are no conflicting studies because browbeating people works. Apply enough pressure to these women, telling them that they are wrong, over and over, and forcing an already emotionally unstable situation even farther and making it all the more painful, and they will cave. Emotional torture works. No one is disputing that.

The government has no business torturing Americans, physically or emotionally.
 
AdamT said:
Really? Education funding doesn't help children? Health insurance doesn't help children? School lunches don't help children?

Amazing how the laws of cause and effect don't function in conservative world.
Click to expand...

Right. The Department of Education has never educated anyone. The Department of Energy has never produced one drop of oil. The FDA has never invented one drug. These agencies are bureaucratic and only serve to regulate.
 
Thunder said:
wrong....so very...very wrong.
Click to expand...

It's noble to give up your own life for a cause you believe in. It's shameful to ask someone else to do so while you won't.

That would be like me sending you to die on the front lines for my freedom, and I stand back with a basket of nachos rooting you on.
 
MrVicchio said:
Wow, overboard much? Most choose life after seeing their unborn and understanding there are better options then death as a solution. Read back a few post I provided this information.
Click to expand...

There were 2 studies sited in the article I read that state Little Evidence Sonograms Change Minds:
The study, published in 2009 in the European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care, found that, when given the option, 72 percent of women chose to view the sonogram image. Of those, 86 percent said it was a positive experience. None changed their mind about the abortion.

In another study, this one published in 2009 in the journal Contraception, Wiebe analyzed how many women chose to look at the embryonic or fetal tissue removed during an abortion. Only about 28 percent of women were interested – "they're curious," Wiebe said – but of those, 83 percent said that viewing the embryo or fetus did not make the process more emotionally difficult.
Click to expand...

http://www.livescience.com/12886-abortion-sonogram-research.htm
 
Peter Grimm said:
Right. The Department of Education has never educated anyone. The Department of Energy has never produced one drop of oil. The FDA has never invented one drug. These agencies are bureaucratic and only serve to regulate.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the questions ... for obvious reasons.
 
This is from a January 2012 article: about the Required Delay Between Sonogram and Abortion in Texas

If the goal is for women to rethink having an abortion, providers argue, it is not working. Clinic directors said they have not had a single woman change her mind in the 24-hour period between her sonogram and her abortion. Abortion opponents and advocates for crisis pregnancy centers say that anecdotally, they have not heard of any either.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/u...-creates-logistical-issues-in-texas.html?_r=1
 
AdamT said:
You didn't answer the questions ... for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

The answer is "no."

The Department of Education has never educated anyone. The Department of Energy has never produced one drop of oil. The FDA has never invented one drug. These agencies are bureaucratic and only serve to regulate.
 
Peter Grimm said:
The answer is "no."

The Department of Education has never educated anyone. The Department of Energy has never produced one drop of oil. The FDA has never invented one drug. These agencies are bureaucratic and only serve to regulate.
Click to expand...

So spending on education does NOT improve education. Providing children with health care does NOT improve their health. And providing healthy lunches does NOT help them learn. Amazing.
 
MrVicchio said:
I'm sure we can both find studies that show our side is right.
Click to expand...

I'm sure minnie did. I'm pretty sure that you cannot, or you would have posted it by now. :lol:
 
AdamT said:
So spending on education does NOT improve education. Providing children with health care does NOT improve their health. And providing healthy lunches does NOT help them learn. Amazing.
Click to expand...

Nope. It does create a nice big government, though. Full of bureaucrats, paperwork, and regulations.
 
:lamo
Peter Grimm said:
The answer is "no."

The Department of Education has never educated anyone. The Department of Energy has never produced one drop of oil. The FDA has never invented one drug. These agencies are bureaucratic and only serve to regulate.
Click to expand...

u prefer we flood the markets with unregulated drugs?

:lamo:lamo
 
Thunder said:
that's a brilliant idea!!!!

thousands of cheap, untested, unverified drugs flooding America's markets..leading to thousands of deaths...and many more sick people.

lovely thought.
Click to expand...

What does the FDA actually do, Thunder?
 
Peter Grimm said:
What does the FDA actually do, Thunder?
Click to expand...

Food and Drug Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The FDA is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the regulation and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs (medications), vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices (ERED), veterinary products, and cosmetics.
 
Thunder said:
Food and Drug Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The FDA is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the regulation and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs (medications), vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices (ERED), veterinary products, and cosmetics.
Click to expand...

Alright, so talking about medication.... if you took away the FDA, all you would remove is regulation. That would lower the cost of prescription drugs immensely. Also, remember you would still need a prescription to get medicine. It's not like you could just go out and buy some random drug just because the FDA wasn't there. Your doctor will advise you and prescribe you which medicines to take.

You're just taking the government out of it, and leaving decisions to be made between a patient and their doctor.

That said, I think we need SOME regulation... just nothing like what we have today.
 
Last edited:
taxigirl said:
Va. House GOP muscles through abortion curbs

"The ultrasound legislation would constitute an unprecedented government mandate to insert vaginal ultrasonic probes into women as part of a state-ordered effort to dissuade them from terminating pregnancies, legislative opponents noted.

"We're talking about inside a woman's body," Del. Charnielle Herring, a Democrat, said in an emotional floor speech. "This is the first time, if we pass this bill, that we will be dictating a medical procedure to a physician.""

Wow. Stay out of my vagina Virginia.
Click to expand...



I have a quick question that occurs to me:


How many of the people up in arms about this can demonstrate that they have ever been similarly incensed about a requirement to have a pap smear in order to get birth control prescribed?
 
Peter Grimm said:
Alright, so talking about medication.... if you took away the FDA, all you would remove is regulation. That would lower the cost of prescription drugs immensely. Also, remember you would still need a prescription to get medicine. It's not like you could just go out and buy some random drug just because the FDA wasn't there. Your doctor will advise you and prescribe you which medicines to take.

You're just taking the government out of it, and leaving decisions to be made between a patient and their doctor.

That said, I think we need SOME regulation... just nothing like what we have today.
Click to expand...

Yeah, who cares about silly stuff like food and drug safety? I'm sure those genormous corporations only have our best interests in mind. :roll:
 
AdamT said:
So spending on education does NOT improve education.
Click to expand...

At this point, that is correct

andrew-coulson-cato-education-spending2.jpg


Providing children with health care does NOT improve their health
Click to expand...

Not when it's the Government Providing it. Especially for our poorer children.

And providing healthy lunches does NOT help them learn.
Click to expand...

they have an interesting tendency to throw those healthy lunches in the trash and get less healthy food off of a black market. :) God bless'em for not liking the nanny state, either.
 
AdamT said:
Yeah, who cares about silly stuff like food and drug safety? I'm sure those genormous corporations only have our best interests in mind. :roll:
Click to expand...

Doesn't your doctor have your best interests in mind?
 
cpwill said:
I have a quick question that occurs to me:


How many of the people up in arms about this can demonstrate that they have ever been similarly incensed about a requirement to have a pap smear in order to get birth control prescribed?
Click to expand...

I have never been required to undergo a pap smear to get birth control (be it pills or other forms). Usually for the pill a blood pressure test is required. Pap smears have to do with detecting cervical cancer, it is recommended that women get an annual test from about 21 y.o. or from when they are sexually active to about age 70. Some doctors do, this article cites it as 1/3 always and 44% "regularly" require it. That is not even half of those surveyed.

This is not required by law as opposed to the ultrasound law being proposed.

Are Doctors
 
Last edited:
so 1/3 always and 44 regularly. my wife has always had to get a pap smear to get birth control. which she describes as a bit less fun than a sonogram.

and the public outcry is.... nowhere.

because this isn't really about the procedure. It's about abortion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom